AGNET JUNE 22, 2001

Five reasons why GMO food labels don't work
Consumers must know value of GMOs
More worries about genetically modified canola
GM flax seed off the market
GM laws please industry but criticised by environmentalists
Protesters warn on genetic engineering
GM seed border control protocol to take effect
Fertilizer company avoids planting transgenic crops
Field experiments resume on virus-resistant papaya
The great food gamble: new GM report questions safety claims
Seed companies threaten science treaty: rolling the die in "sin city"
Indian government committee encourages additional large-scale trials of
insect-protected cotton by Mahyco, Monsanto's seed partner in India
Monsanto setback as India refuses to grow GE cotton
GM rice will trigger market for non-GM rice? Thais call demand for non-GM
crops a ''golden opportunity''
Corny ending
Tolerance would allow orderly marketing of Starlink corn
10th European Congress on Biotechnology


Agnet is produced by the Centre for Safe Food at the University of Guelph
and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Affairs Plants Program at the University of Guelph, with additional support
provided by Ag-West Biotech, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Monsanto Canada, Meat and
Livestock Australia, National Food Processors Association, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, Canadian Wheat Board, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool,
Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, Crop Protection Institute, Canadian
Animal Health Institute, Syngenta Crop Protection Canada, Rutgers Food Risk
Analysis Initiative, FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, Business News
Publishing Co., Tyson, National Cattlemen¹s Beef Association, JIFSAN,
National Pork Producer¹s Council, Adculture Group Inc, DuPont Canada,
Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Gustafson Partnership, Ontario Corn
Producer¹s Association, Biotechnology Australia, Horticulture and Food
Research Institute New Zealand, Effem,  Nation Resources and Environment
Australia, 3M, Burger King, Ontario Soybean Growers, Canadian Food
Information Council and the Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt
Program).
archived at:
http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/agnet-archives.htm

FIVE REASONS WHY GMO FOOD LABELS DON'T WORK
June 22, 2001
National Post
C19
Douglas Powell
Last year, one of my farmer colleagues grew some genetically engineered
sweet corn and table potatoes. Neither the Bt sweet corn nor the potatoes
required any insecticides to manage pests. After harvest, the two crops were
sold in his farm market in Hillsburgh, Ont., fully labelled, alongside their
conventional counterparts.
The genetically engineered Bt sweet corn outsold the conventional by a
margin of 3-2. Same for the potatoes. The two products were sold for the
same price, and while many consumers were more interested in taste, for
others, the primary selling point was the reduction in pesticide sprays and
worm damage.
So why not just label all GMOs (genetically modified organisms), as such
foods are routinely, though mistakenly, called?
When several small suppliers of organic foods were asked by Loblaws to
remove the GMO-free claims from labels -- in some cases using a black felt
pen -- the latest round of simplistic declarations about consumer choice was
underway. But as the Canadian General Standards Board has discovered in its
belaboured attempt to devise meaningful standards for GMO labelling -- and
as several countries attempting to implement GMO labelling have learned --
the task is complicated by definitions, trace amounts and, primarily,
politics
Canada already has mandatory labelling for any novel food that differs in
nutritional, chemical or toxicological characteristics from its conventional
counterpart, and for any food that involves the transfer of genes from known
allergens. But should other GMOs be labelled? The answer is no, for the
following five reasons:
1. Whole foods are not trace ingredients. Sweet corn and table potatoes are
the only whole, genetically engineered foods available to be grown in
Canada. It is in the commodities -- field corn, soy and canola -- that
genetic engineering is more common. Field corn products such as high
fructose corn syrup and sorbitol, for example, are ubiquitous in soft drinks
and toothpaste, respectively.
What of the potato, now engineered to resist the Colorado potato beetle, the
scourge of North American potato growers, with the Bt-toxin from the
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis? Should the French fries sold at the local
ballpark -- possibly derived from Bt-containing potatoes and cooked in oil
derived from genetically engineered canola -- carry a sticker proclaiming
the involvement of biotechnology? If there is no health risk, as Health
Canada has decided in the case of both of these products, the answer is no.
Should consumers be able to determine the origins of the fries? Absolutely.
But that can be accomplished through 1-800 numbers, point-of-sale
information and other vehicles. Mandatory labelling of all food ingredients
is expensive and, in a society that values convenience over cooking skills,
impractical.
2. Surveys lie. But don't some 90% of consumers want GMO ingredients
labelled? Sure, but that is largely because of the way survey questions are
asked. When Americans were asked what information they would like to see
added to food labels, without reading a list of current triggers such as
genetic engineering, over 80% failed to suggest anything.
3. GMO-free often isn't. As reported in the Wall Street Journal in April,
supposedly GMO-free Yves Veggie Cuisine from Canada, along with dozens of
other such products, was found to contain significant quantities of
genetically engineered corn and soy. Of the 20 so-called GMO-free organic
products tested for the Journal, 11 were found to contain ingredients from
genetically engineered crops. So Loblaws is justified in demanding a
verifiable standard for GMO-free from its suppliers who want to make that
claim.
4. GMO cannot be defined. The vast majority of foods are genetically
modified. (GMO-free proponents are likely referring to genetically
engineered foods). But that won't stop hucksters from trying to make a buck
at the grocery store, or the beer store. Millions of health-conscious
Canadians were undoubtedly relieved to learn earlier this month that
Quebec's Unibroue beers contained no GMOs, joining GMO-free Canadian Club
whiskey and McCain French fries in a breakfast of champions.
But the April newsletter of the Association Generale des Producteurs de
Mais, which represents France's corn growers, states that biotech genes are
found widely in French-grown corn. And Unibroue says nothing about usage of
European malt made from European barley varieties -- almost all of which
contain mutated genes created by deliberate exposure to high levels of
nuclear radiation technology, which is termed genetic modification under
Canada's Food and Drugs Act.
The GMO-free scam is also hugely susceptible to fraud and to use as a
non-tariff trade barrier. Some commentators have already suggested that
Loblaws enforced the no-GMO-free labelling policy to bolster the prospects
of its own organic line. China's new rules on such labelling are already
being interpreted as a pre-emptive trade barrier to protect its grain
farmers after it enters into the World Trade Organization.
5. Labelling is not about choice. Greenpeace and other activist groups state
plainly in their literature that the products of genetic engineering may
cause some unknown, theoretical health or environmental harm and should
therefore be banned. However, in the absence of a ban, everything should be
labelled to provide consumer choice -- and that will produce a de facto ban.
The number one selling tomato paste in the U.K. in 1998 was made by Zeneca,
sold in supermarkets at a slightly lower price, and labelled as derived from
genetically modified tomatoes. But when a media frenzy arose in the U.K. in
the fall of 1998, stores rushed to remove genetically engineered products,
including the tomato paste. So the previous number one seller was no longer
available. And still isn't.
Couldn't happen here? When two local Zehrs supermarkets asked us to provide
genetically engineered sweet corn to their stores last fall, they were
overruled by corporate headquarters in Toronto.
Why? Too much controversy. Yet we had shown that consumers preferred the
genetically engineered product. For some, pesticide reduction is
intrinsically valuable, but to most, it becomes valuable when it is linked
to an increase in quality. Labelling a whole food like sweet corn is vastly
different from labelling an ingredient in a processed food, especially when
the label is designed to alarm rather than inform. The biotechnology debate
to date has involved superficial stereotypes, caricatures and the mindless
banter of pro versus anti. It misses the point that providing food consumers
are actually interested in buying involves a series of trade-offs and
considerations that are specific to individual farms and locales.




CONSUMERS MUST KNOW VALUE OF GMOS
June 22, 2001
The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)
A11
Don Carlson, President, Dennis Detillieux, Secretary and Gerald Wurm,
Treasurer of the Humboldt and District Marketing Club discussed at a recent
meeting, according to this letter, what they could do to counteract all the
negative information about GMO crops and biotechnology.
"Maybe we should start a class action lawsuit against Percy Schmeiser for
losses we've incurred because of his ongoing battle with Monsanto" was a wry
suggestion. "Perhaps we should do our part in voicing our concerns by
writing a public letter" was another.
The authors say they are concerned about losing the available technology and
future development of herbicide-resistant crops or crops that would resist
certain insect pests such as wheat midge and army worms.
Herbicide-tolerant crops, especially Roundup Ready canola, have benefited
our farming practices in many ways. We have reduced tillage, earlier
seeding, lower fuel and chemical costs, less erosion and less salinity.
Reduced tillage builds up the organic matter in the soil and improves water
penetration.
Seventy per cent of producers have grown GMO crops because of these
agronomic benefits. Such a high percentage of use shows their merit.
If 20 per cent to 30 per cent of cultivated land had been summerfallowed
last year, as was the practice in earlier years, the skies in Western Canada
would have been dark with dust this windy spring. The soil erosion would
have resembled the "Dirty Thirties." Continuous cropping, along with GMO
crops, saves our soils.
If GMO foods should be specifically labelled, all others should be labelled
as to herbicides or pesticides used on them. Consumers have already shown
that they would pick GMO foods over foods doused with chemicals.
The negative information has cost our canola industry, as well as all
farmers, many dollars of lost revenue. We are afraid it will stem all
further research. We would like the consumer to see the benefits that GMOs
can offer and not to be misled or frightened by all the negative publicity.



MORE WORRIES ABOUT GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLA
June 21, 2001
CBC News and Current Affairs
ALISON SMITH: There are more worries tonight about genetically modified
canola, a controversial plant that was originally designed to help farmers
fight weeds. Well, now in some places, the genetically modified canola
itself has become a weed. As Kelly Crowe reports, farmers who don't want it
are having a tough time controlling it.
KELLY CROWE (Reporter): That's it, standing out above the rest of the crop,
western Canada's newest weed, genetically modified canola, popping up where
it wasn't planted and isn't wanted. And because it's designed to resist a
chemical weed killer, it doesn't die with the rest of the weeds. Dan Karen
is with Manitoba Agriculture and Food. He says he's been getting calls from
farmers who want to know what to do.
DAN KAREN (Manitoba Agriculture and Food): We're seeing side effects that
maybe we haven't seen in the past that maybe raise a few red flags.
CROWE: In this field, the farmer has never even touched a genetically
modified canola seed. Still, the canola is growing here, and now plant
scientists are trying to solve the mystery of how it got here. The theory,
cattle manure. The seed travelling right through the animal into the manure
and onto the field, a sign of how much this plant can spread.
MARTIN ENTZ (University of Manitoba): The GM canola has, in fact, spread
much more rapidly than we thought it would. It's absolutely impossible to
control.
CROWE: Ottawa approved genetically modified canola back in 1996, one of the
first varieties to be licensed. In this decision document, the government
considered its potential to become a weed of agriculture and its potential
to become a plant pest, and decided it would be no worse than regular
canola. Today, Steven Yarrow of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency agreed
that the canola is now becoming a nuisance, but advised farmers to simply
use another chemical. But scientists say it's not that simple. Although
other chemicals will kill the canola weed, some can also kill whatever new
crop is planted. And in this field, the canola was sprayed with the
recommended alternative, and it still survived.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN (1): Again, this plant has somehow escaped.
CROWE: And there's another problem. This scientific paper describes a case
of a canola that was sprayed with three different chemicals and still won't
die.
ENTZ: It's been a great, a wake-up call about the side effects of these GM
technologies.
CROWE: Monsanto, the company that created a variety called Round-up Ready
Canola, says this is not a big problem. Farmers should simply call the
company. Monsanto says it will send people out to pull the plants out by
hand. But this law professor says Monsanto may be liable to pay for damages
if canola spreads. He says it's a legal question that still hasn't been
answered.
MARTIN PHILLIPSON (University of Saskatchewan): I don't see the federal
government taking any action at all legislatively or regulatorily at all in
this area. I think they will be very reluctant to do so. I think it will
have to come down to the cost.
CROWE: For many farmers, genetically modified canola is still a popular
choice. But some are beginning to worry that the crop that was supposed to
simplify their weed control is starting to make things more complicated.
Kelly Crowe, CBC News, Toronto.



GM FLAX SEED OFF THE MARKET
June 22, 2001
The Leader-Post (Regina)
A8
Jason Warick
SASKATOON -- A genetically-modified flax seed developed at the University of
Saskatchewan has, according to this story, been taken off the market because
of European fears the variety will contaminate other flax produced in
Canada.
The story says that the last of the 200,000 bushels of Triffid flax seed
worth at least $2.5 million was rounded up from farms across the Prairies
and crushed earlier this year and de-registered April 1.
John Allen, director of market development for Quality Assured Seeds, a
farmer-owned company licensed by the U of S to sell Triffid, was quoted as
saying, "Yes, it was frustrating. We lost money. We lost a chance to provide
a useful product to our customers."
The story says that Triffid, named after the tall, three-legged walking
plants in a 1950s science fiction novel and movie, is now illegal to sell or
grow in Canada.
Crop varieties are commonly de-registered when they become obsolete or
defects are discovered. The Triffid case is unique because it's the first
time a productive, federally-approved crop has been removed from the market.
It's also the first time farmers have led the call to make a crop
unavailable to them.
The story explains that Triffid, modified to be resistant to the herbicide
sulfonylurea, was developed by U of S Crop Development Centre senior
research scientist Alan McHughen and registered with the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency in the mid-1990s.
The licence was granted to the Regina company, and Allen was quoted as
saying they "anticipated a substantial amount of profit" from the sales. The
U of S also stood to profit from the royalties.
But European customers, which buy 60 per cent of Canada's flax, said they
didn't want to buy any GM flax.
Barry Hall, Flax Council of Canada president, was quoted as saying, "We
acted as the catalyst. We got the production shut down. It was one more step
to reassure our European customers."
Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission executive director Linda Braun was
cited as saying her group also pushed for de-registration, adding, "We're
concerned about losing markets. European customers are not interested in GM
flax. We felt we should address the issue."




GM LAWS PLEASE INDUSTRY BUT CRITICISED BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS
June 21, 2001
Excite Australia/Reuters
http://www.excite.com.au/news/story/abc/20010621/19/tech/abc-21jun2001-92.in
p
New Australian regulations over genetically modified (GM) organisms have,
according to these stories, been welcomed by the industry groups, but
criticised by environment groups.
The national laws replace a voluntary system, with the independent Office of
the Gene Technology Regulator to police them.
The stories say that the locations of at least half the genetically
engineered (GE) trial sites in Australia are to be made public, while there
are applications from companies to keep the rest of them secret.
The laws provide for fines of more than a million dollars for companies that
breach them, and the locations of at least half the 120 trial crop sites
will be made public.
Multinational crop company Monsanto's spokesman Bob Arnst was quoted as
saying, "We are very happy to work within the current guidelines."
Greens Senator Bob Brown and the Organic Federation of Australia were cited
as saying the guidelines are too weak, and Australia's crop lands will be
contaminated with GE material.
The Gene Ethics Network's Bob Phelps was cited as saying he does not believe
the threat of large fines will make the big corporations improve their
performance, adding, "They've miss behaved themselves, they've broken the
guidelines and we don't think they'll obey the law."
The Organic Farmers Federation's spokesman Scott Kinnear was cited as saying
the regulations are disappointing, adding, "No data whatsoever will be
gathered on when a crop is commercialised. When they start selling seed to
farmers to pursue their expansion program throughout Australian agriculture,
there will literally be no data kept on where and when the crops will be
grown. Farmers won't be notified and that's a real concern."
The stories also say that the Commonwealth's Gene Technology Regulator has
upheld Tasmania's ability to continue with a moratorium on GE crops, in the
face of tough new Federal laws.
While the laws allow for details of all sites across Australia to be made
public, multinationals Monsanto and Aventis have applied to have the
locations of their Tasmanian sites kept secret.
The acting regulator, Liz Cain, says the new laws do not impinge on
Tasmania's right to continue its moratorium on GE crops.
Meanwhile, the South Australian Government has come under fire over its
refusal to support Tasmania declaring itself a GM-free zone.
Gene Technology Regulator, Liz Cain, was cited as saying that about 120
genetically modified (GM) crop field trials had been approved in Australia
under interim arrangements but their sites had not been disclosed.  However
she said new laws which came into effect yesterday meant the location of GM
experiments by companies such as Monsanto Co and Aventis - which dominate
Australia's crop trials - could only be kept secret if proved to be
"commercial in confidence".
This meant that the company has to prove that disclosure would threaten its
ability to make a profit.
Cain was cited as saying that the regulator would release the trial site
information unless companies could show there would be damage to the
environment, to human health and safety or to property as a if the crop
locations were made known.  Companies also has to prove that revealing a
crop site is not in the public interest to ensure site information is kept
secret.
Cain was quoted as telling reporters that, "The onus is really on the
companies to meet an incredibly high test that applicants are going to have
to get over if they are to have their site information dealt with as
commercial-in-confidence information."
The locations of some of the genetically modified (GM) crop trials around
Australia are to be revealed on a new website.
It is part of the regulatory framework for GM organisms that comes into
force today.



PROTESTERS WARN ON GENETIC ENGINEERING
June 22, 2001
The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/06/22/FFXMETGU8OC.html
Environmentalists and gene ethicists were cited as urging Premier Steve
Bracks to cancel his upcoming trip to the US to promote Victoria, Australia,
as a genetic engineering centre, saying its was a risky new technology which
should not be at the top of Victoria's priorities.
The story says that a couple of dozen protestors on the steps of Parliament
this morning put on a "genetically engineered street theatre" to highlight
their concerns.
The centrepiece of the display was a weird creature made out of cardboard,
material cotton and wooden sticks it had a pig's head, a dog's tongue, a
sheep's body, chicken legs and a tiger's tail. To top it off, there was a
giant syringe inserted into the body to symbolise genetic tampering.
This, they worry, could be the result of genetic engineering.
GeneEthics Network director Bob Phelps was quoted as saying, "We want Mr
Bracks to stay home. We already know that the field trials of genetically
engineered organisms in Australia generally and probably in Victoria have
polluted the environment," adding that Mr Bracks was committing $110 million
to research the genetic engineering of food, crops and drugs when the money
could be better used elsewhere.



GM SEED BORDER CONTROL PROTOCOL TO TAKE EFFECT
June 19, 2001
Press Release by New Zealand Government at 19 Jun 2001 17:23
http://www.maf.govt.nz/MAFnet/press/190601gm.htm
A new protocol that reduces the risk of unapproved genetically modified (GM)
seeds being imported into New Zealand will take effect from August 1, the
Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, announced today.
The new protocol will apply to all non-GM sweet corn seeds imported for
planting.
"There is growing international concern about this issue, as all countries
face difficulties detecting unapproved GM seeds," Marian Hobbs said. "The
new inspections for imported seeds will provide a high level of assurance
that incoming seeds are non-GM.
"The law does not permit unauthorised GM seeds to be deliberately imported
or planted, and if GM seeds are detected, the consignment will not be
allowed to enter New Zealand."
The protocol is an interim measure for 12 months and will apply only to
sweet corn seeds. Sweet corn seeds are imported only between August and
December. The Government will develop a new protocol to apply from next
year, which may be extended to cover other seeds.
Consignments of sweet corn seeds will be tested at the border for GM
presence, unless the producers use an accredited quality assurance system
that involves testing for GM presence and additional measures to prevent GM
contamination. Reputable seed companies provide a high level of assurance
that their seeds are non-GM.
The Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) will accredit assurance
systems and set up auditing procedures, including testing consignments at
the border.
MAF expects to accredit the main companies by the end of 2001, and audit
testing will begin after companies have been accredited.
Marian Hobbs said the greatest difficulty lay in obtaining reliable test
results for very low levels of contamination. The limit of reliable
detection occurs at a contamination level of somewhere between 0.1 percent
and 0.5 percent (between one and five GM seeds per 1000 non-GM seeds). Below
these levels, repeated tests produce ambiguous or conflicting results.
"This does not mean that there is an allowance for contamination, but
reflects the fact that no test can detect GM material with 100 percent
certainty," Marian Hobbs said.
Technology for detecting GM material is still new. As yet, there are no
international standards to refer to.



FERTILIZER COMPANY AVOIDS PLANTING TRANSGENIC CROPS
June 21, 2001
CropChoice news
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?RecID=359
The agronomists at AgriEnergy Resources Inc., in Princeton, Ill try to avoid
planting transgenic corn and soybean varieties on the 300-acre company farm
that they use as testing ground for biological fertilizers (e.g., compost
tea, manure tea, humic and fulvic acid).
" We want to increase soil life and rely less on chemical inputs," says
staff agronomist Ken Musselman.
So why the informal policy of avoiding genetically engineered seed?
Musselman cites two reasons:
1. Segregation. The staff wants to be able to say that their crops, which
are
processed and sold, are non-transgenic. In fact, the company sometimes
receives a 5- to 10-cent per bushel premium because of that. Although
neighboring fields of transgenic varieties are somewhat of a concern, none
of the AgriEnergy crops has tested positive for genetically modified
organisms. Instead of growing seed crops, the AgriEnergy turns to seed
companies, including Pioneer, for non-transgenic varieties.
2. Soil life. It¹s still unknown what these crops do to soil ecosystems.
Research at the University of Missouri has concluded that the fusarium,
fungi that inhibits growth, is more prevalent in soil around Roundup Ready
soybean plants. Monsanto engineered the variety to resist the herbicide
Roundup (glyphosate).
Musselman added other reasons to question the wisdom of this technology.
" As we get further down the road with transgenic crops, it limits the
production
decisions made by farmers and instead puts them in the hands of the chemical
and seed companies," he says.
And then there is the growing problem of genetic contamination of organic
crops.
Organic standards disallow farmers from using transgenic seed to grow the
grains, fruits and vegetables they sell at a premium.
" If you give up a five to ten cent premium, that¹s one thing, but giving up
$10 per bushel is a problem," he says. " At that point, organic production
is no longer an economically viable option."



FIELD EXPERIMENTS RESUME ON VIRUS-RESISTANT PAPAYA
June 22, 2001
Bangkok Post
Thaliand Deputy Agriculture Minister Nathee Klipthong was cited as allowing
a field experiment on genetically modified papayas was  to resume yesterday.
The story explains that the field trial, by the Agriculture Department, was
put on hold by a cabinet resolution in April after demands by greens that
all GM field trials be scrapped in the absence of a biosafety law and good
preventive measures.
Tests will be held at field stations before the product is tried out on
farmers' fields, though it will be some time before the product makes it way
to the market.
Mr Nathee, who was visiting the Agriculture Department's experiment station
in tambon Tha Pra, Muang district of Khon Kaen, said anti-GM groups would be
told of the change at a meeting on Monday.
Mr Nathee said the GM papaya field test seemed to have been conducted under
strict preventive measures.



THE GREAT FOOD GAMBLE: NEW GM REPORT QUESTIONS SAFETY CLAIMS
June 21, 2001
FOE Press Release
http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/2001/20010621004918.html
The way GM foods are approved is not sufficient to protect human or animal
health, a new report by Friends of the Earth concludes . ³The Great Food
Gamble² shows that current procedures are unlikely to pick up unexpected
health effects, such as toxins or allergens,that may be created by GM foods.
This problem is likely to be made worse by future GM foods, which are likely
to use more complicated modifications.
In particular the report highlights:
The Challenges of GM food
Imprecise and blunt methods are currently used to insert new genes, which
contrasts with the tight and precise control of native genes. Unexplained
alterations in the composition of GM crops have already been observed for GM
foods already on the market.[1]
³Substantial equivalence²
This concept is used as a baseline for GM safety tests. If the company can
show that the GM food is similar to conventional food then it does not need
to carry out proper safety testing. However a number of foods that show
significant differences in composition have unexplainably been accepted as
³substantially equivalent². In addition, there are differing definitions
around the world and foods that have been approved for example in the
USA,have been rejected or severely criticised by the EU.
Lack of scientific scrutiny
Very few of the safety studies carried out by biotech companies have been
published and made available for scientific scrutiny. In addition some
companies refuse to put key safety data into the public domain whilst
publically stating that their products have gone through³extensive safety
trials.²[2]
Higher risks in developing countries
Many GM foods show changes in composition to their conventional
counterparts. The impacts of this on developing countries where sometimes a
single food makes up a substantial part of the diet is a major concern. For
example maize provides up to 59% of the daily protein for people in Central
America. Richer people eat a more varied diet.
The US's GM guinea pigs
Until May last year there was no statutory oversight for GM crops in the US,
only a voluntary consultation procedure. Over 45 foods are thought to be on
the market with no monitoring or labelling.
Any attempts to monitor for health effects at this stage would be extremely
difficult if not impossible.
Adrian Bebb, GM Food Campaigner for Friends of the Earth said:
³This report sounds the alarm bell over GM food safety. There is clearly a
large difference between our ability to create GM crops and foods, and our
ability to test whether they are safe to eat. If there was ever a case for a
freeze on GM foods then it would be now. With a new food ministry in the UK
there is a real opportunity for the Government to rethink it's previous
enthusiasm for GM foods and to put human safety before the profit margins of
the biotech
companies.²
NOTES TO EDITORS
1. For example, Aventis' T25 herbicide tolerant maize shows differences in
amino acid composition and significant differences in fatty acid
composition. Novartis' insect-resistant Bt 176 maize shows³sporadic
statistically significant differences between the genetically modified maize
and control maize² (Novartis Safety Assessment 1994)
2. For example, Novartis has refused to release the data of its safety tests
for Bt176 maize.
The Great Food Gamble can be found on the Friends of the Earth website at
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/great_food_gamble.pdf




SEED COMPANIES THREATEN SCIENCE TREATY: ROLLING THE DIE IN "SIN CITY"
June 21 2001
RAFI News Release
www.rafi.org
Self-proclaimed 'heroes' in Monte Carlo, the world's seed companies have
bowed to U.S. pressure in Sun City, South Africa.
The world's leading seed trade association, ASSINSEL (International
Association of Plant Breeders for the Protection of Plant Varieties, Nyon,
Switzerland) may have succumbed to political pressure from the USA and four
other OECD governments.  The trade group has reversed its position in
support of a new global treaty to safeguard the exchange of research seed
for food security.  The policy turnabout apparently came during the trade
group's annual meeting in Sun City (popularly known as "Sin City" because of
its casinos).   ASSINSEL is expected to tell governments at the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization in Rome next Monday (June 25th) that it, "...does
not support the current IU [International Undertaking, the treaty] text...".
The statement will come as a shock to European governments and to diplomats
from Africa, Asia, and Latin America attending the Undertaking's final
negotiating round June 25-30.
Card tricks:  "In 1998 at the industry's annual bash in Monte Carlo, seed
companies agreed that they should pay a proportion of their intellectual
property royalties into a common fund for global seed conservation," Patrick
Mulvany of ITDG (UK) recalls, "the fund is to be managed by the treaty's
intergovernmental body. While the move was a ploy to entice poor countries
into accepting the North's patent regimes, some South countries see it as a
tax on corporate seed ."   Developing nations took the industry proposal as
"admission that the South has been 'ripped off' but now the companies are
prepared to pay," Mulvany adds.  "Rightly or wrongly, it represents a moral
victory of sorts for some delegations. Taking their bid off the table in Sun
City is an attempt to scuttle the treaty."
Governments in the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) adopted a
non-binding International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources in 1983.
Since then, the expansion of intellectual property regimes to encompass
plant varieties and breeding material, combined with globalization and the
ratification of patent rules in the WTO in 1995 have led to a crisis in the
scientific exchange of agricultural breeding material between countries.  In
1995, FAO's Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture began
the politically complex task of turning the 1983 Undertaking into a legally
enforceable treaty.  Its primary objectives are to facilitate access to
research seed; to safeguard the world's major genebank (seed) collections
held by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research; and
to guarantee that in a world of rampant privatization, the several million
seed samples donated by farmers as the basis for today's plant breeding will
stay in the public domain.
Cards under the table: Civil society organizations have been notifying
European and South governments of the industry flip-flop.  "I talked with
several governments," Susanne Gura of the German NGO Forum on Environment
and Development (Bonn, Germany) confirms, "all are stunned by the explicit
industry rejection of the draft text.  The prevailing opinion is that the
companies have been double-dealing. They had ample opportunity to express
their views during the negotiations.  They did not."
In 1998, after almost three years of fractious wrangling, the Chair of the
FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture moved the
debate to a 41-country Contact Group.  Industry and civil society are
allowed one representative each in the closed-door encounters.  ASSINSEL
represented the companies and RAFI (Winnipeg, Canada) observed on behalf of
CSOs.  "The seed industry made its move at the Tehran Contact Group last
August," RAFI's Pat Mooney remembers, "The proposal was modified by Norway
and Japan and accepted by all the governments.  Since then, the Contact
Group - with ASSINSEL in attendance - has met three additional times with
the last round concluding at the end of April. It was clear that ASSINSEL's
deal rang belated alarm bells in Washington as well as in Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand.  France and Switzerland were also jittery about
establishing a global tax precedent of a conflict with the WTO but the
Europeans all agreed to stick together backing the tax.   Industry reps were
adamant in defending the proposal.  Now - on the eve of the last negotiating
round - the companies are changing their game."
What happened?   "Canada and the USA asked for a meeting with ASSINSEL in
April," Pat Mooney says.  "At that meeting, both governments pressured them
to come out against the draft text since it had been modified by Norway and
Japan.  The French Government also approached their seed industry to
withdraw support for the royalty tax."  Intense lobbying by the U.S. and
Canada - especially Canada according to insiders - has caused confusion and
panic within some national trade associations not intimately familiar with
the treaty process.  Some companies have complained that the language around
intellectual property issues is ambiguous, "We have the same complaint from
an entirely different political perspective," Pat Mooney notes, " but the
text is still under negotiation.  Now is not the time to launch torpedoes.
These are the same companies that pushed for the TRIPS (intellectual
property) chapter in the WTO.  TRIPS is a legally binding text - which they
support - that couldn't be more ambiguous for plant varieties.  Now they are
pretending that ambiguity is a problem."
Stacking the deck: Not only have Canada and the USA been trying to reverse
industry's position, but the USA may also be working with two dissident
Latin American governments to conjure up a fall-back or alternative to the
treaty.  Susanne Gura and Silvia Ribeiro (of RAFI in Mexico) attended a
meeting of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR, Washington DC, USA) in Durban, South Africa just before the ASSINSEL
casino caper in Sun City.  A subset of that meeting was called by the USA,
Brazil, and Colombia to discuss the possible development of a global
endowment fund for major agricultural seed banks.  The three governments
clearly see the endowment proposal - obviously a good idea from almost any
perspective - as an end-run around the International Undertaking.  The seed
industry also likes the endowment.  Several European governments are now
alarmed that the USA, Colombia, and Brazil - perhaps with Canada and
Australia - are not only trying to derail the treaty but present a global
genebank fund as a viable alternative to an intergovernmental agreement.  On
this, Pat Mooney is emphatic, "An endowment fund for the world's most
important regional and international gene banks is long overdue," he says,
"but it won't work outside of a legally binding intergovernmental
Undertaking.  To clear up this confusion, CGIAR should announce next week
that the endowment if it comes into being, must be placed under an
intergovernmental umbrella.  If CGIAR refuses to make such a public
statement, alarm bells will really start ringing."
Rolling the die: Civil Society observers are concerned that the two
initiatives amount to a political pincer movement to cut the solidarity of
Europe with the Group of 77 (South) countries.  "The only good news," Pat
Mooney suggests, "is that the industry move is so gauche that it will
backfire.  They are being manipulated by Canada and the USA.  Europe and the
South will likely just carry on while the United States drops out. When
ASSINSEL rolled the die in Monte Carlo, they scored a PR success," Mooney
concedes, "In Sun City, they played Russian roulette and lost.  Maybe next
time they should pick a venue other than a casino!"
This is a joint news release issued simultaneously by:
IATP (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis), USA
ITDG (Intermediate Technology Development Group), UK
GAIA Foundation (London, UK)
German NGO Forum on Environment and Development, Bonn, Germany
GRAIN (Genetic Resources Action International), Barcelona, Spain
RAFI  (Rural Advancement Foundation International), Winnipeg, Canada




INDIAN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE ENCOURAGES ADDITIONAL LARGE-SCALE TRIALS OF
INSECT-PROTECTED COTTON BY MAHYCO, MONSANTO'S SEED PARTNER IN INDIA
June 22, 2001
>From a press release
ST. LOUIS, June 21 -- The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC)
of India's Ministry of Environment said today that insect- protected cotton
has
performed better than conventional cotton, and it is encouraging Maharashtra
Hybrid Seeds Company Limited (Mahyco), Monsanto's seed partner in India,
to conduct additional large-scale trials of the insect- protected cotton
this
growing season.
"We will continue to work with Mahyco, cotton growers, researchers and the
regulatory authorities to conduct the steps necessary to bring insect-
protected
cotton to Indian farmers," said Robert T. Fraley, Ph.D., executive vice
president
and chief technology officer of Monsanto Company.
"Biotechnology makes it possible for plants to protect themselves from
insects,
and this technology is already reducing insecticide applications and
increasing
farm income for farmers in other nations. We're pleased that the Indian
government acknowledges the potential of the technology."
During the past several years, Mahyco has conducted more than 100 field
trials
with insect-protected cotton in different planting regions in India. While
Mahyco
has fulfilled the guidelines and directives issued by the government, the
official
approval process has caused some of the previous field trials to be planted
later in the year, which prevented full-season demonstration of the benefits
of
the technology.
As suggested by GEAC, Mahyco plans to begin planting field trials on an
additional 250 acres under the supervision of GEAC and other designated
monitoring groups. Mahyco and Monsanto hope to receive the necessary
approvals to make insect-protected seed available to Indian cotton growers
for
the 2002 season.




MONSANTO SETBACK AS INDIA REFUSES TO GROW GE COTTON
June 21, 2001
Greenpeace Press Release
New Delhi/London: Greenpeace is congratulating India, one of the world's
leading cotton growing countries, for its decision to ban commercial growing
of genetically engineered (GE) cotton, maintaining the country's GE free
status.
The decision, taken earlier this week by the Indian Genetic Engineering
Approval Committee (GEAC), is a significant set back for Monsanto, whose
local partner (seed company Mahyco) planned to introduce the so called Bt
Bollgard cotton for commercial production into approximately 8.5 million
hectares.
Monsanto's Bt cotton would have been the first GE crop commercialised in
India. The Indian authority ordered an additional year of field trials for
the GE cotton to be conducted under an independent supervision of the Indian
Council of Agricultural Research.
The authorities concluded that the data provided by the companies
Monsanto/Mahyco was not sufficient as their field trials were not conducted
during a normal cotton season, and therefore no valid information on the
crops performance could be determined.
"At a time when the issue of GE crops is highly controversial and increasing
scientific evidence is emerging about potentially harmful effects of GE
crops to the environment, no country should blindly rush into taking a
decision on commercial planting," said Michelle Chawla, Genetic Engineering
Campaigner for Greenpeace India.
"The fact that Monsanto/Mahyco was hastening the process on the basis of
inadequate data is deplorable."
Monsanto/Mahyco did not inform the Indian authorities of the emerging
problem with their GE cotton in China, where the pest, cotton bollworm, has
already developed some resistance to the Bt crops and the farmers have to
use pesticides in addition.
They also failed to provide any comprehensive scientific data on the effects
of GE Bt cotton on natural enemies of the cotton bollworm, such as the
lacewing, which is used as a biological pest control as an alternative to ch
emical pesticides.
"Monsanto/Mahyco intended to introduce to India an outdated GE product that
has failed to get market approval in Europe because of environmental and
health concerns. This crop also contains an antibiotic resistance gene,
which may render diseases immune to an important antibiotic used in India
against tuberculosis, Streptomjcin," Chawla added.




GM RICE WILL TRIGGER MARKET FOR NON-GM RICE? THAIS CALL DEMAND FOR NON-GM
CROPS A ''GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY.''
June 21, 2001
PlanetRice.com
http://www.planetrice.net/newspub/newstory.cfm?id=953
Greenpeace has recently campaigned to expose the widespread use of GM
ingredients--imported from abroad--in Thailand and the Philippines. In the
process, Greenpeace may have also unwittingly exposed a growing market
opportunity for foods that are certified as not having been made from GM
crops, the Far Eastern Economic Review reported on June 14. Unlike the
United States and Canada, Asian countries have not embraced GM seeds, the
FEER reported. Japan recently approved three GM seed varieties, but China is
the only Asian country that now grows a GM crop: cotton.
But several countries have imported GM seeds for field trials, and GM rice
is under development, with commercial varieties about 5 years off.
Multinational seed companies have promoted GM seeds as a key technology for
feeding growing populations.
But for agricultural exporting countries like Thailand, India, and Vietnam,
the marketing benefits of avoiding GM crops may far outweigh any yield
increases or nutritional benefits GM seeds may offer, the FEER said.
"Now is our golden opportunity. Most countries are looking for non-GM
produce. We should take advantage of it," says Wanchai Cherdshewasart, a
member of Thailand's National Board of Biosafety. The advantage of non-GM
crops has all to do with consumer perceptions of GM crops. Carole Burke,
editor of Japanscan's Food Industry Bulletin, says, "Japanese consumers are
very concerned about food quality and safety in general, and are very
sceptical about the safety of GM foods."
That same scepticism has spurred several European countries to reject
numerous shipments of American and Canadian GM corn, soy beans, and canola.
Thailand's prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, is well aware of how such
consumer sentiment affects export markets. He recently told a local
newspaper, "We should not say that we want or do not want GM...People are
just suspicious of the technology."
While some GM commodities have been approved for import into Europe and
Japan, many European governments now require the labeling of foods with GM
ingredients. Asian countries are beginning to follow suit. Some companies
like food-processing giants Unilever and Nestle have eliminated the use of
GM ingredients in their operations in Europe.
Japan's top two brewers, Asahi and Kirin, eliminated GM ingredients several
years ago. Says Burke, "All leading food-processing companies in Japan are
very conscious of consumers' fear of GM foods. Market leaders in all
segments of the food industry are demanding GM-free commodities, and the
menus of major restaurant chains note their foods are GM-free."
As labeling becomes widespread, the demand for GM-free food is likely to
increase and could potentially represent a multibillion-dollar market. Burke
says the growth in demand can be compared to the demand for organic food.
In Japan organic foods represent only 1%-2% of food sales, "but will grow
considerably" she says.
Organic foods are the fastest growing segment of food sales in the U.S. To
meet that demand, U.S. food processor Archer Daniels Midland has been
offering American farmers a premium for non-GM corn and soybeans of around 8
cents a bushel.
But maintaining separate storage and processing facilities for GM and non-GM
commodities requires vigilant tracking, which increases costs.
To avoid this complication, Brazil adopted the alternative strategy of
simply banning the import of all GM seeds and commodities. Brazil's new
reputation as a reliable source for non-GM corn and soy beans was the key
factor in South Korea's recent decision to import Brazilian, rather than
American, corn.
When GM rice hits the market, demand for non-GM rice will likely follow, and
Asia, the world's ricebowl, will be expected to meet that demand.
In Asia, Thailand is the country best positioned to reliably serve the
non-GM market. More than 2 years ago, the government banned the import and
cultivation of commercial-GM seeds. While there are currently experimental
field trials of Monsanto's GM cotton, and the government-funded National
Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology is conducting research into
GM papaya, tomato, and cucumber, those field trials may not be legal for
much longer.
At the urging of Thai NGO Assembly of the Poor, Thaksin's cabinet is
considering a ban on the field-testing of GM seeds and plants.
Agricultural economist Chaiwat Konjin, who oversees a major Asian
Development Bank agricultural loan in Thailand, says, "It is not in the
interest of Thailand to produce transgenic crops. The trade issue is very
important and we must protect our export markets."
The Philippine Senate tried to pass similar legislation last year. Despite
an active NGO community opposed to GM crops, the move was unsuccessful.
Unlike Thailand, the Philippines is a net importer of food, especially rice,
and is more concerned about feeding its population.
The Philippines is also home to the International Rice Research Institute.
The IRRI's spokesman, Duncan Macintosh, says the proposed ban was
short-sighted and would have been counterproductive.
"We try to keep our research agenda separate from consumer concerns. Because
without the science, consumers will never get the facts they need to have a
constructive debate."
China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and even Thailand are part of the IRRI's
Asian Rice Biotechnology Network, which may eventually develop GM rice
varieties, the Far Eastern Economic Review reported.
If such a variety were to come to market, "there is just no way Japan would
accept it," says Burke. "The Japanese are extremely fussy about their rice."
Chaiwat says Thailand is keenly aware of this attitude and neither the
Ministry of Commerce nor the Ministry of Agriculture will promote GM crops.
"We want to protect our own varieties of rice."
Vietnam is the world's second-largest rice exporter, after Thailand, but the
Vietnamese serve a different market segment with lower-quality rice and so
are not as opposed to the idea of GM rice.
The governments of China and Indonesia, like the Philippines, are more
concerned about food security than export-market security and so are not
opposed to GM rice.  While the Indian government is cautiously optimistic
about GM crops, a delegation of private soybean producers recently visited
several European countries to confirm that Indian soy was still non-GM.
While Thailand's stance toward GM crops may be pre-emptive, it is not simply
forward-looking. Thailand has already run into problems with some of its
export markets. A few months ago, the government of Saudi Arabia rejected
shipments of tuna packed in soy oil produced from GM soybeans, imported from
North America. The two countries have resumed trade in tuna, but Thai
manufacturers must now label the product as GM-free and pay for
certification by a third-party testing facility.
This experience underscores the complexity of the situation and lends
credence to Greenpeace's calls to ban imports of GM commodities from other
countries, which are often used in foods processed in Thailand.
But there are reports of Thai farmers smuggling and growing GM seeds from
China, and there is always the possibility that GM seeds and plants will be
brought into the country illegally or by accident. While the verdict is
still out on whether GM crops are a boon for farmers and consumers or a risk
with far-reaching environmental implications, Thailand's pragmatism suggests
an answer already familiar to business:
The customer is always right.


CORNY ENDING
June 18, 2001
REASON Express Vol. 4 No. 25
Editorial
Yet another media feeding frenzy ends with a nary a burp. Genetically
modified StarLink corn, reported to contain "contaminated" material that
supposedly would cause adverse reactions in humans, turns out to be nothing
to worry about.
Or so say the professional worriers at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. A CDC study released last week found that StarLink did not cause
the allergic reaction that 17 people reported after the story broke.
"Although the study participants may have experienced allergic reactions,"
said the CDC, "we cannot conclude that a reported illness was [a
StarLink-related] allergic reaction."
Currently, StarLink is approved only for use in animal feed. It contains a
protein that has been added to give it extra resistance to insects. Last
fall, the big fear was that those processing plants that non-modified corn
as well as StarLink would impart traces of the latter to such human
foodstuffs as taco shells.
Product recalls quickly followed, and as surely as night follows day, some
people said the recalled stuff must be responsible for some illness they
suffered.
But the CDC blood tests did not find antibodies to the protein in StarLink,
a traditional measure of allergic reaction. The threat of such reactions is
cited as a major reason that modified foods are dangerous.
The StarLink episode also shows that facts will be of little use in swaying
those opposed to genetic modification of foodstuffs.
Anti-biotech groups have already said the CDC study proves nothing and,
sadly, even the people who participated in the test are not convinced.
Grace Booth, for example, still blames her anaphylactic shock on a
StarLink-related enchilada.
"Everything else I ate in the 72 hours before I got so sick, I've eaten
again with no problem," she said. "Frankly, I don't trust the tests."
It is that kind of thinking, along with the dedicated lobbying and media
manipulation by the anti-biotech crowd, that now confronts the Environmental
Protection Agency. The EPA will decide whether StarLink should be approved
for human consumption.



TOLERANCE WOULD ALLOW ORDERLY MARKETING OF STARLINK CORN
June 2001
Wallaces Farmer
Rod Swoboda,
 http://www.farmprogress.com/frmp/articleDetail/0,8055,3099+45,00.html
A government study released June 13, 2001 showed no evidence linking human
food allergies and genetically modified StarLink corn. That study could help
farmers and grain elevators sell their StarLink-mixed grain with less hassle
and perhaps without a price discount.
Charles Hurburgh, an Iowa State University professor of ag engineering and
an expert on grain quality, says the report might help set a tolerance level
for StarLink. Hurburgh serves on a scientific panel advising the federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on this issue.
The federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released the study. It says
that in its recently completed tests, there was no evidence that the
protein, called Cry9C and found in StarLink corn, caused the allergic
reactions that were claimed by 17 people. The people may have been sick, but
it wasn't StarLink that made them ill.
Cry9C is a protein found in a naturally occurring bacterium that is fatal to
European corn borers. StarLink corn varieties have been genetically modified
to produce this protein in the plant. When the insect takes a bite out of
the corn plant, the insect dies.
Aventis Crop Science, developer of StarLink corn, has asked EPA to allow a
small amount of Cry9C in human food products. Aventis wants EPA to set a
maximum level for the biotech grain--20 parts per billion--which is the
equivalent of one StarLink kernel for every 800 kernels of corn.
"The CDC report relieves a lot of anxiety over the health questions about
Cry9C," says Hurburgh. "It could relieve some of the marketing pressure,
too, but we have to make sure our trading partners accept the credibility of
the report."
When EPA approved StarLink three years ago, the corn was restricted for use
only in livestock feed. There were concerns that it may cause allergic
reactions in humans.
However, efforts to keep StarLink out of human food products failed last
year. Many different kinds of products had to be recalled when the Cry9C
started showing up in tacos and other items on grocery store shelves.
Aventis agreed to buy the StarLink corn and make sure that it was fed to
livestock. As much as half of Iowa's 2-billion bushel corn crop last year
contained traces of StarLink corn. Losses to farmers were estimated to be
hundreds of millions of dollars, although Aventis did eventually pay farmers
some money to help make up for farmers' losses.
Japan still abiding by zero tolerance standard
StarLink has resulted in a loss of export sales. Japan, for example, the
largest overseas buyer of U.S. corn, doesn't want StarLink kernels in their
corn. So the Japanese have been buying corn from China and Argentina instead
of the U.S, notes Hurburgh.
Allowing a low level such as 20 parts per billion of StarLink in corn
shipments may not help the U.S. recapture its corn market in Japan, but it
could open up U.S. processing markets to StarLink.
"By establishing a tolerance, we could open up opportunities for selling the
corn for processing in our own country," says Hurburgh. "It would take some
major pressure off of the grain marketing chain."
"In the system we have today, we are still working with a zero tolerance,"
he points out.
"As anyone involved in grain handling knows, zero doesn't exist. With zero
tolerance, even if you had only one kernel in a railcar, that would
theoretically be enough to cause the corn to have to be directed to another
use."
Hurburgh and the other members of the scientific panel are keeping track of
StarLink issues and are advising EPA. This committee, which has 13-members,
is scheduled to meet again July 17 to 19 in Washington, D.C. to review the
studies and evaluate other new information about StarLink.
The panel will write a report, which will be used by EPA in considering the
request by Aventis that EPA declare the corn to be safe for people or to
allow small amounts in human food. It is uncertain as to when EPA will reach
a decision.
"EPA will be the agency to decide on the tolerance, although I'm sure they
will have to have at least an informal agreement with the Food and Drug
Administration and USDA," says Hurburgh. "The key will be whether or trading
partners, the foreign buyers of our grain, will go along with it. If not,
then the whole problem piles up at the export elevators."



10TH EUROPEAN CONGRESS ON BIOTECHNOLOGY
June 22, 2001
European Federation of Biotechnology
http://www.sebiot.es/congreso.htm
BIOTECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM
July 8-11, 2001
Palacio de Congresos
Madrid, Spain
Chairman Dr. Rafael P. Mellado.
President of SEBIOT
ECB10 - SEBIOT
Vitruvio,8
28006 Madrid
Phone/Fax: (34) 91 561 34 64
e-mail:sebiot@orgc.csic.es
For details, see: http://www.sebiot.es/congreso.htm


To subscribe to Agnet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe agnet-L firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe agnet-L Doug Powell

To unsubscribe to Agnet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
signoff agnet-L

For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
dept. of plant agriculture
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ont.
N1G 2W1
tel: 519-824-4120 x2506
fax: 519-763-8933
dpowell@uoguelph.ca
http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood

archived at:
http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/agnet-archives.htm